I absolutely take your point on a plurality of tactics being a generally good and useful thing. †I think every movement needs a lunatic fringe to grab attention and drive their own middle ground forward. †However, when the lunatic fringe is or appear to be no longer the fringe, but the main body of the movement, I think you wind up with serious problems in getting your message across. †I think this has happened with environmentalism to some extent, where a large part of the public had (at least in the past, I think it's changing now) the impression that all environmentalists were EarthFirst ecoterrorists. †Whether that's the case with atheism now, I don't know, but the risk is there.

Sometimes it's hard to separate tone from substance, when they're part of the same thing. †I'm referring to the second and longer part of PZ's post where he berates other atheists for wanting him to impose "self-censorship" on his views on Christians and Christianity. †He wants complete freedom to ridicule religious beliefs and not to have them protected and privileged in a "walled garden". †In this case, the substance is whether or not he should use that tone. †

I reckon that attacks on religious belief (a la the "cracker"/communion wafer incident a while back) are foolishly counterproductive if you're trying to eliminate atheist discrimination or trying to argue against creationism. †(But personally, I think that PZ is more interested in ridiculing religion for an audience and so isn't too fussed about entrenching opinions.) †Does he have the right to ridicule religion? †Absolutely - he's doing it right now. †Is it a smart thing to do? †Depends on the context, I guess. †If he's preaching to the faithful, it might be useful and amusing. †If trying to persuade Christians to stop discriminating against atheists or to see the errors in their beliefs, maybe not. †

It might be argued that ridiculing religion is like civil rights movement confrontations - sit ins, occupying whites-only sections of restaurants and buses. †But it's not really. †It's not defense of rights, but pure offense. †That's where I think your MLK analogy breaks down. †When applied to attacking anti-atheism, yes it fits. †But when applied to publicly attacking religious belief itself, that approach is more like the Nation of Islam. †(Treading close to Godwin territory?)

Anyway, I hate to comment and run, but I'm off for the weekend here shortly and away from the machine, so I won't be able to respond to anything directly for a while.

That's a great post, and one with which I don't entirely disagree. However there are bits of it I do disagree with....shock horror!

Where in anything PZ has said is there an advocacy of violence? Actual violence not nasty words? Back away from the rhetoric! It's got outta hand! The two do not compare.

Second, ridicule, shock tactics like cracker thingy, work. They jolt, they jar, they draw the attention. It's not about preaching to the converted it's about challenging the status quo. Was Rosa Parks being purely offensive when she refused to get out of her seat? Doubtlessly it offended someone.

This is the kernel of our disagreement: you see what PZ is doing as purely designed to offend and that that is a bad thing. I don't. I think what he does by and large offends incidentally. Sure, occasionally he goes out of his way to offend, sometimes he gets that right and hits the mark. Sometimes he doesn't. I find it interesting that you are complaining about the cracker thing. He stuck a nail through a biscuit and stuck the biscuit in the bin. And people threatened to kill him because of it. In this, pick a side. The side of the people making the death threats is the wrong one.

You also seem to see ridiculing religion as an inherently bad thing, I don't. I think ridiculing poor ideas is good. More than that I think it is necessary. So indeed did Thomas Jefferson, so I'm in fairly decent company even though he owned slaves! If one wants to challenge religious privilege (good thing) then sorry but challenging the basis for that privilege is a necessary part of it. And yes it will offend.

However, that said, this is not the only way. MLK was quite outspoken, read that letter I linked, seriously. We accept such vehement ridicule and exchanges of views in science, politics, in every sphere of discourse except religion. Your comment is expressly trying to separate religion again, to make the ideas beyond examination. I'd argue that's precisely what got us into this mess in the first place. BUT if you have a nicer way to finesse your opposing religious privilege then great, I know these methods are out there and I am as strong an advocate for them as I am for the more PZ-esque methods. Really, go to it. I am very serious when I say let a thousand flowers bloom. I really do mean it.

And sorry, you're wrong. PZ really is just one guy. Nothing he says is binding on me or you. If some religious person says "Oh that naughty PZ, you must be like him", then CORRECT THEM.

Are all Frenchmen the Marquis de Sade, or worse, Sarkozy? ;-)

No! The condition of being French is not enveloped by being like Sarkozy, you are not beholden to agree with him.

Your dislike of PZ is making you think in a woolly fashion. In fact, until some evidence of non-woolly thinking is evident in this thread I'm done with it and you. I really do have better ways to waste my time.

Good bye. I hope you enjoy your hate party as much as the moron element at Pharyngula enjoy theirs. As I said, a plague on both your substance free houses.

The evidence I have of your shitty ally status is this: your own words. You frequently (and are doing so again here) mock people with legitimate complaints against the discriminatory status quo. I'm not outraged at the gelato guy's sign (nice straw man), I'm outraged that any such thing is apologised for in a civil society. Are you so soaked in apologising for oppression that you cannot see this tiny insignificant incident is a part of a greater pattern?

Louis...

Sticking with just the sign thing, how do you consider this as part of a discriminatory status quo (if you do)?

Personally, I see it as a hot blooded reaction to a perceived personal attack. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Ok this is quite simple. The two (hot blooded response and expression of discrimination/greater status quo) are not mutually exclusive.

Imagine the analogous sign in a white majority country:

"No people from the Million Man March are welcome in my WHITE shop".

However that sign came about I hope we'd both agree that it's a pretty clear example of a discriminatory sign...Snipped for brevity.

I am just not seeing the comparison Louis. From what I have read, the guy was running a business when a convention came to town, he went to see what was going on and saw/heard his religion being mocked. That got him angry and so he put a sign up saying conventioneers where not welcome in his Christian shop.

I can't conect that with something like the "no blacks or Irish" signs you mentioned. It is more like the Muslim reaction to Mohamed cartoons (but far less serious) IMO.

Add to that, he acted in an angry state of mind, calmed down, saw he was wrong, took the sign down. Then when it was pointed out to him he apologised. I just can't get worked up about that. Certainly I don't equate it to racist signs. Had he put up a sign saying "no atheists" before they even came to town, then I would agree.

Your dislike of PZ is making you think in a woolly fashion. In fact, until some evidence of non-woolly thinking is evident in this thread I'm done with it and you. I really do have better ways to waste my time.

Good bye. I hope you enjoy your hate party as much as the moron element at Pharyngula enjoy theirs. As I said, a plague on both your substance free houses.

Glad to know you have better things to do than waste your time with me or us. At least you are doing something constructive.

Bye bye, and just to expand on your generous apreciation: the only person I have hate for is my ex-guitarist. Everything else is just fun-stuff. And about substance: what have you adressed here except form?

No, don't answer that! I'm done playing.

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

I do believe that people can raise their level of awareness about their own injurious conduct, and that at times remorse prompted by one's own impulsive behavior is the most potent stimulus of all for that kind of change. I have behaved impulsively in ways that betray prejudices of which I was only half-aware (considerable research shows that we all have them, our idealized conceptions of ourselves notwithstanding) only to become aware, typically with considerable chagrin and remorse, that I had behaved stupidly and hurtfully. Deep change sometimes follows such events. Consciousness raising, we used to call it, an apt term.

To some extent, this appears to have happened to his young man, and fairly quickly. His conduct arose somewhat situationally and emotionally - which is how prejudices of which we are only semi-aware, or haven't really thought through, are often elicited. I read his retraction of his conduct and his subsequent apology as completely sincere - as good as it gets, really (this from the guy who coined the term "notpology.") A major disanalogy between this man's conduct and that of other perpetrators of heinous forms of discrimination and exploitation mentioned above, such as directed against black Americans through much of U.S. history, is that the latter clung stubbornly and often violently to their conduct and privilege and had to be forcibly dislodged.

A major function of an apology in the context of an ongoing relationship is to repair a breach in that relationship caused by bad conduct. "I recognize my conduct was wrong and feel remorse as a result of that conduct. Please forgive me." Accepting an apology is a second step in the repair of that relationship. But some conduct is too egregious to forgive. Other conduct leaves the basis for continuing the relationship as before permanently damaged (most often at the level of trust) even given an apology and acceptance of same.

Of course, there really is no prior relationship to repair in the instance of these internet exchanges, so the impact of bad conduct and the function of apologies and acceptance of same typically has a more generalized, rhetorical and public purpose. Given that, PZ finds this young man's conduct too egregious to forgive. But in doing so PZ promotes (demotes?) Gelato to synecdoche †- he is not just a guy who displayed a moment of emotional conduct which he quickly retracted and regretted, but rather became Intolerant Religious Zealotry itself.

The problem with this, for me, is that individual people can experience the sort of remorse and consciousness raising I describe above, as did this person, but synedoches cannot. That's a distinction that has become lost in this flurry. Of course, it is PZ's prerogative to use the event to press a larger point - it is one of the axes he grinds - and there was certainly no prior relationship there to repair. Is this content, or tone? Whichever, I don't see his choice as particularly helpful or constructive or even apt, in this instance, as it dismisses out of hand the personal movement I see displayed in the apology. That's a shame, IMHO, as we need more such movement, not less.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

1) Carlson, you don't read so good do you. I have repeatedly said *I* am sexist (etc). If there is a difference between us, then it is that I realise that I am sexist and you are working to ignore your own sexism (or whatever-ism). You repeatedly ignore this. You're in denial. Your posts scream it.

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 1000, Louis. What is it? †I mean you are such an expert on my thoughts and states of mind surely you must be clairvoyant.

† † †

Quote

I can't answer it for you, but I can say that you continually argue against the people trying to challenge discriminatory status quos. Why do you do that?

I don't Louis. †What I argue against is people doing so in a counterproductive manner. †And since I can already see the conclusion your fevered little mind is already jumping to, this is not a version of the "Don't be a dick" speech. I would more accurately describe it as the "Go ahead and be a dick, but ferchrissake understand that there are actually times when it is more appropriate to not be."

† † †

Quote

You're right, I know nothing about your life. I don't need to.

What I really appreciate about you, Louis, is your unfailing honesty. †This one line is a monument to that honesty. Of course you don't need to know anything about me. You already decided from the git-go exactly what kind of person I am. Why waste any more precious time that could be better spent on the stoning.

† † †

Quote

The problem I have is that your criticisms are FREE OF SUBSTANCE. Don't play silly games and claim your point is hidden and I'm being stupid, it's isn't, it's obvious and it's still substance free

I am not playing a silly game. I am saying exactly what I mean. That you are more interested in venting your spleen than expending one single calorie in trying to understand isn't my problem. †It's yours.

† † †

Quote

You are criticising PZ's form not the substance of his claims (and throughout your posts you do it again and again). THAT'S the issue.

And here is a perfect example of your willful efforts to misunderstand me. I have already agreed with you. Why do you keep coming back to this point like a broken record unless this is the core issue for you? I've disagreed with PZ. †Thus, I must be shouted down.

† † †

Quote

All your criticism is due to what you see as PZ sensationalising things for profit. I've said that it's tangential to the substance of the issue and all you do is repeat it.

No Louis, it isn't the totality of my complaint. †It never has been. First, I am not going to pretend to be able to read another persons mind and claim perfect knowledge of their intents. †I'll cede that ground to you. †I can only comment on how it looks to me. There are two points that I am trying to make. One of which you have partial, if incomplete, grasp of. †The other, however, has yet to pierce that lump of bone and fecal matter that sits atop your shoulders.

First, I have no problem at all with PZ earning some dinero off of his semi-celebrity status. Perhaps his refusal of the apology is sincere. I have no way of knowing. But, when you are compensated based on your ability to keep both your supporters and detractors in a state of agitation, silly things like reconciliation and trying to win people over to your side could start to look like a drag on the old cash flow. †

In the fight for equality, there comes a point where intractable absolutism is counterproductive. †Just as Martin Luther King and those that succeed him will never wipe out racism, PZ ain't going to change the minds of the 150 million Christians that apparently hate him. †I would have presumed that PZ would have welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate that atheists are jus' plain folk worthy of as much respect and equality as anyone else. †How many people do you think were convinced of that by his petulant little foot stomp? †Meh, don't answer that. If you can't change 150 million minds, why bother with one?

You said earlier: † † †

Quote

I am content for you to forgive GG and accept his apology (if you do), and for PZ not to. Neither are "right". However, one is more consistent with a stated principle of trying to achieve a more equitable, secular society and one is less consistent.

So, reconciliation is less consistent with achieving equality? I'll bet to smug, sanctimonious pricks like you, Joe Lowery and James Hood were race traitors.

† † †

Quote

Tell me Carlson, do you tire of your dishonesty or is it something fun?

So, Louis, are you calling me a liar outright? Other than thinking you are full of shit, what was my lie, Louis? Or is this another one those times like when you kinda sorta tried to tag me with some label while maintaining plausible deniability? †

† † †

Quote

Just like every creationist moron the world has ever produced you are incapable of reading a simple document for comprehension and instead have to tweak it to make it say what you want by cutting out the inconvenient bits. Let's just say your tactics are not unfamiliar.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

† † † †

Quote

He's asking for nothing more than equality with his comment about 150 million people. He's asking that the people who thoughtlessly contribute to a culture of discrimination (which demonstrably exists by the way) against atheists (not as a community per se but as individuals) to apologise. He's pointing out the inequality of the situation. He's not scapegoating this poor gelato bloke, he's using him as a teaching example (surely you're in favour of that...right?).

All worthy goals (see what I did there, Louis?). †All of that message stands on it's own merits. †Nothing is added by refusing an apology. But, I am trying to suggest, something is lost.

† † †

Quote

He's saying why should he, PZ, bear the burden of magnanimity? He's not the one doing the discriminating. What he is doing is illustrating the disparity in the situation here, the inequality.

The was the beauty of passive resistance. †It highlighted the †inequality, not by aping the violence and vitriol, but by letting it stand on it's own.

For me, from an artistic perspective, this photo is the essence of the civil rights struggle. †It isn't a bunch of librul agimatators mugging for the camera. †It is highlighting how the system reacts to people walking down the wrong side of the street. It holds up a mirror, not a magnifying glass. † † †

Quote

5) Straw men? From me? Where? Find one.

Here: † † †

Quote

People who whatever happens continually apologise for the wrongs of others and try to avoid confrontation.

I've done neither. All I have done is challenge PZ's and your response as the wrong thing in the situation. †But, that was apparently enough. Why won't you let my little flower bloom in your oh-so-big garden? (And, uh, I mean that in a strictly non-homo way*)

† † †

Quote

I said you are issuing apologetics for a discriminatory status quo, and you continue to do so. This is not the same thing as apologising for GG's actions. Are you smart enough to grasp that?

Yes, but apparently you aren't smart enough to read my literal words, no less interpret them. †But, it finally seems †clear now what your major maladjustment is. †It is perfectly encapsulated in the old saw "When the only tool you have is a hammer, all of your problems look a lot like nails" My whole point is that while a hammer is certainly a valuable tool, it isn't in all contexts. How you manage to twist that into me saying that the only tool you are allowed is an overcooked noodle is beyond me.

† † †

Quote

9) I'm done being nice to people who cannot do me the "nice" of actually engaging with what I am saying, and what they are criticising. You want manners? Fucking demonstrate them yourself.

Wait,what? †Are you suggesting my continued level of vitriol is not doing anything to get you to understand my point? Surely not!

† † † †

Quote

I've wasted time and effort on many lines. One I wrote earlier sums it all up:

"You are consistently on the side of shutting people with legitimate complaints up, simply because you don't like how those complaints are expressed or over what specific incidents."

All the rest is gravy. Carlson, if you are not a bigot (and as I have said, you are probably no more a bigot on any specific thing than I am), you are an apologist for bigotry (and THIS is where we differ). †Read the "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" and try to understand why this is the case. Forgive me if I severely doubt you lack both the inclination or capacity to do so.

Here is the thing, Louis. Even apart from the prolix, you come across as the mirror image of Kairosfocus. †The willful ability to not understand what was laid in front of you. † The complete rejection of subtlety. †Vilification of those who question doctrine. The absolute, unwavering certainty of your own rightness and your opponents mental and moral degeneracy. †The reliance on overblown language while getting a case of the vapors when the same comes back. And, the cherry on top of the crap sundae is your apparent desire, despite my insignificance, to have the last word. †You are a thing of beauty, Louis. †I couldn't have argued my case any better than you argued it for me. †

And, unlike one of my favorite sockpuppets that tweeked KF but good, I have no interest in seeing how insistent you are to shout me down. My glorious work here is done.

* Are you going to make that evidence of my homophobia, Louis? Or do you acknowledge that buttsecks jokes are part of the stock and trade around here.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

True, no-one flies airplanes into buildings in the name of godlessness. So far.

So far? Really? Tell me how you get from ATHEISM, a lack of belief in a deity, to flying planes into buildings. I can draw you a line from fundamentalist christianity, or extremist islam, or extreme revolutionary communism to an act like this (hell, a few hours on google and I could probably find you examples), but atheism. I don't see it. Not because I'm an atheist, but because there's nothing there to base such a decision on. You can get specific jihadist interpretations of the qu'ran, or violent interpretations of the bible, but atheism lacks anything remotely like this.

I can see how people who are also atheists could do nasty things, plenty of evidence for that, but nasty acts specifically derived from atheism? Nope. That reduces to the theist claims that atheists lack morals etc, which are rank nonsense.

†

Quote

Anyway, I'm not about to go frothing lunatic fanatic nutbar on this particular issue. :-)

I think I've sailed that ship!

Louis

Louis, i get to flying planes into buildings from thinking that i am right and the guy in the building is wrong. Has nothing to do with where the idea came from. Religion just has a history of well defined us and them delineations.

Seems to me that pz is using the very same playbook.

And, in terms of nasty acts in the name of atheism, you're working awefully hard to rationalize one right now. Think about that for a minute before you respond.

Ok then. I think you're wrong. Very wrong. Seriously wrong.

Look out your window. Keep looking until a plane appears with me at the controls.

I'd get some beers in, it could be a long wait.

The line from religious ideas and texts to things like planes crashing into buildings exists. It is documented, it is advocated by the ideas contained in those religions. People deliberately cherry pick specific religious ideas to make a case for their violence. I am saying it is impossible to do that with atheism. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity or deities. It may even go further in some cases and be active disbelief in a deity or deities. That's IT. Period. Full stop. The fat lady has sung. Elvis has left the building.

Religions have more to them than this, there are more things that make a Christian a Christian or a Muslim a Muslim. Their theism is insufficient. There is no "atheist religion", no text one must adhere to, no doctrine one must subscribe to. I vehemently disagree with your ludicrous claim that pressing CTRL P at Pharyngula with get me an atheist bible. Take for example the feminist content at Pharyngula. That's mostly from a specific school of feminism. Where's that contained in a lack of belief in deities? Do I have to subscribe to every aspect of that school of feminism in your Pharyngulite atheist bible? I hope not because I don't.

I chose that as an example because it is OBVIOUSLY ridiculous. You, and PZ, are attaching a whole slew of things to atheism that aren't there. I disagree with him and I disagree with you. The disagreement I have with him is pretty simple. He claims that there is more to being an atheist than being a "dictionary atheist". I disagree, that's the only requirement. Where I agree with him is that as people we should do more than merely assert our dictionary atheism. We should also stand up for positive rationality and values. But that's a different dance for a different partner. It's not encompassed in atheism.

Louis

P.S. If it seems this way to you, then perhaps you aren't looking hard enough. Ever consider that? Perhaps you're working awfully hard to rationalise your dislike of something. Think about it for a minute before you respond.

You forgot the step before the part where u post. Louis, i respect your thinking and your honesty in addressing your own arguments just as critically as those you are dissecting. This time you are not understanding your own arguments and the reason is that you are accepting the doctrines of atheism as truth and therefore not even seeing the possibility of criticizkng an element of your own arguments.

The argument that god or religion is what drives people to kill is false. There has to be someone who needs killing first.

The idea that there is someone who needs killing has nothing to do with religion except tangentially. It has to do with people who believe the wrong truths.

So, does gelato guy believe the wrong truth? Does pz?

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

Okay, so I'm an atheist, but not really defined by my atheism. And I'm an Agnostic Atheist, so there is a chance for me converting one day.

For me, there is no atheism leadership, hierarchy, mandates (Yes Carslon, Man-Dates), etc. If someone who also purports to be atheist says something, I can agree with all, some or none of what they say, issue by issue. I don't think there is any leadership, structure, or schisms to be had. I'm only really interested in ideas in isolation. Of course if you have had good ideas (in my opinion), I'll read you more and be more receptive. The opposite for bad ideas.

With regard to Theists, I have no issue with the following caveats:

1) allow your young to choose their own path2) Treat people the same, give everyone exactly the same rights (god and presumably punish them afterwards)3) Don't expect me to respect your faith if you assert it.4) If fine with you talking about your faith in the public square providing you're fine with criticism. Dialogue must be symmetrical, with no sacred cows.5) Keep religion out of government. You have no right to impose your religion.

So PZ - he can be a bit extreme, some of it is I suspect for effect. Given the religious atrocities that exist in the world today, I'd personally focus on the worst, not the mundane. But I'm not a web celebrity.

This label 'atheism', don't get hung up on it as a social movement, learned friends.

So PZ - he can be a bit extreme, some of it is I suspect for effect. Given the religious atrocities that exist in the world today, I'd personally focus on the worst, not the mundane. But I'm not a web celebrity.

Dear Muslima...

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Louis is a brilliant scientist, a funny chap, and a great human being. Although the original statement gave me LuLz, it makes me feel ill at ease to have him bunched in any way with the likes of GEM.

We have our disagreements alright, but there's no need to drop the nuke.

Round of beer for everyone!

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Louis is a brilliant scientist, a funny chap, and a great human being. Although the original statement gave me LuLz, it makes me feel ill at ease to have him bunched in any way with the likes of GEM.

We have our disagreements alright, but there's no need to drop the nuke.

Round of beer for everyone!

I just invented some nummy shimmy ice cream for dessert, but we don't serve no agnostics!

Seriously, though, I admit that PZ seems to be going through something. I just feel that all I can do is remain his friend. I'm not going to shake any fingers because I don't think it would do much good. Anyone who needs to talk about anything can come to me - I hope that people know this.

What gets me is that this kind of fighting doesn't seem to happen so much in African American community, despite the high level of religiosity there - they seem to talk more about God than Christianity, despite being Christian. I say this after 25 years of riding the bus and having lived in predominantly nonwhite communities. Now when white people say, "I'm a Christian," many times what I hear is, "Look at me." So, a counter "No, look at me!" can develop between them and atheists.

Atheists are largely white, as feminists have been. The question of a "Dear Muslima" moment is relevant - there are not enough diverse voices.

We keep saying that things take time to develop evolutionarily. I also think that this will sort itself out in time.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

I understand where u are coming from kristine. I am sorry to run with this but i feel pretty strongly that when people choose a leader to follow uncritically, that leader has either the responsibility to respond with a statement of clarification or else that leader needs to be marginalized. At this point, pz is well into the landscape of preaching a party line which needs to be marginalized in my opinion.

Ridicule which justifies hate speech has no place in my world. The man you know is not my target. However, his behavior is. To publish an article which justifies absolutist thinking, which places ideology above compassion, is an act which should not go unchallenged.

And it should certainly not be legitimized. I would hope that if i were to go so far off the rails that people would challenge me and i also hope i would be able to find the humility to correct the mistake. If i could not find it in myself to correct my mistake, i would hope people would recognize that my legitimacy as a spokesman for a group was destroyed and would be able to marginalize me in that capacity.

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

anyone who didn't witness the sheer douchebaggery of pz, laden and the coven couldn't possibly understand the hypocrisy of pz banning folks for stating a different world view and refusing to "convert".

For what it's worth, I didn't mean to compare pz with ecoterrorists or any violence or anything violent. The ecoterrorist thing was only about how some of the louder, less pleasant parts of a movement can set the whole movement back.

For what it's worth, I didn't mean to compare pz with ecoterrorists or any violence or anything violent. †The ecoterrorist thing was only about how some of the louder, less pleasant parts of a movement can set the whole movement back.

Well, to be fair, the movement to marginalize religious bigotry seems to keep chugging along despite street-corner preachers and PZ. Right now, the unlikely hero is a christian.

Quote

However, Drennenís response, concerning the street preacher telling us that atheist were going hell, was that was also wrong, believing that people on all sides, even Muslims, should try to co-exist in this world without mockery, judgment, or imposing their beliefs on others.

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

anyone who didn't witness the sheer douchebaggery of pz, laden and the coven couldn't possibly understand the hypocrisy of pz banning folks for stating a different world view and refusing to "convert".

Or banning people for commenting on other threads. †Hmm...where have we heard that before? ???

eta - by other threads, I mean other websites.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

For what it's worth, I didn't mean to compare pz with ecoterrorists or any violence or anything violent. †The ecoterrorist thing was only about how some of the louder, less pleasant parts of a movement can set the whole movement back.

Well, to be fair, the movement to marginalize religious bigotry seems to keep chugging along despite street-corner preachers and PZ. Right now, the unlikely hero is a christian.

Quote

However, Drennenís response, concerning the street preacher telling us that atheist were going hell, was that was also wrong, believing that people on all sides, even Muslims, should try to co-exist in this world without mockery, judgment, or imposing their beliefs on others.

Well, I think mockery has it's place - but it depends on what you want to achieve (do you want to change someone's mind, "convert" them, or just do it for the lawlz).

PZ has to quote other parts of the interview, though.

Quote

During the interview, Drennen said he felt people cannot reach others with such shows that mock others. He does not know how atheists expect to reach others by using mockery and ridicule.

That just expresses the common view that many have that if you want to reach people, mockery isn't the best. Again, I don't entirely agree with that - a lot depends on the situation and individuals involved. But PZ goes on that point to make it:

Quote

It seems to be an obligatory opinion of people who believe in mockable and ridiculous things that they will oppose mockery and ridicule. Iím afraid there is no magical exemption ó there isnít a set of stupid beliefs that you get to set on a pedestal and declare that no one can call them stupid. Go ahead and retaliate by mocking and ridiculing the stuff I consider important, like science and evolution and reason and empiricism. I will joyfully leap into that fray.

Not sure how he got one from the other. It seems to me that he is missing (perhaps intentionally, perhaps not) the nuance of the comment. Now, perhaps he did say more in the interview, but then why not quote it - why use that one line instead?

I also question that he will "joyfully" leap into the fray, especially when his holy oxen are being gored with mockery - we've seen his reactions to the whole..what the heck is it...months?...of his cherished beliefs being mocked. He responds with banning, threats, and promotion of hostility and a lack of open debate or discussion. Practice what you preach.

Then you have this bit of childishness:

Quote

Iím also not going to tailor my opinions to pander to Andy Drennanís delusions. Itís only going to work in reverse: Iím now feeling regret that I didnít dump on religious foolishness at all in my Skepticon talk, and I kind of resent that if I speak there again next year, Iíll feel compelled to toss in a few mocking references to the inanity of Christianity just in case Andy shows up, even if they arenít relevant to the subject at hand.

Seriously? A lot of this crap started with one lush acting unprofessionally, and now you have someone who should know better saying he'll deliberately insert shit where it doesn't belong. No class, no professionalism. It makes me wonder now if what he says about the way he talks in class is true. Sorry, but if something is irrelevant to the presentation, just don't include it. I hate when I go to hear somebody, or watch something, and have to put up with the speaker/presenter's pet peeves - that's not why I go there.

And this is someone who (for reasons beyond me) is being held up as a spokesperson for atheism (ok, I can see that, despite his "dictionary atheist" claim as atheism-as-a-worldview) and skepticism (I have no idea why). Are we (as a movement, which I also find funny) that desperate for Stars and Idols?

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Iím also not going to tailor my opinions to pander to Andy Drennanís delusions. Itís only going to work in reverse: Iím now feeling regret that I didnít dump on religious foolishness at all in my Skepticon talk, and I kind of resent that if I speak there again next year, Iíll feel compelled to toss in a few mocking references to the inanity of Christianity just in case Andy shows up, even if they arenít relevant to the subject at hand.

Seriously? †A lot of this crap started with one lush acting unprofessionally, and now you have someone who should know better saying he'll deliberately insert shit where it doesn't belong. †No class, no professionalism.

FAIL in reading comprehension. PZ said he'd feel the urge to insert shit where it doesn't belong, not that he actually would insert shit where it doesn't belong. And his use of the word "resent" suggests that whatever PZ may think of that urge, it's not one he approves of nor is likely to act upon. But y' know, if you just want to dump on PZ for the heinous sins of not accepting an apology and publicly stating that he, PZ Myers, does not intend to patronize one particular business, do carry on.

Iím now feeling regret that I didnít dump on religious foolishness at all in my Skepticon talk, and I kind of resent that if I speak there again next year, Iíll feel compelled to toss in a few mocking references to the inanity of Christianity just in case Andy shows up, even if they arenít relevant to the subject at hand.

Cubist has a valid point, atlhough I think the wording in Myers' statement is very porrly done. Or maybe it is deliberately so.

We could go on this shit endlessly.

Time to move on? (here, at least)...

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Iím also not going to tailor my opinions to pander to Andy Drennanís delusions. Itís only going to work in reverse: Iím now feeling regret that I didnít dump on religious foolishness at all in my Skepticon talk, and I kind of resent that if I speak there again next year, Iíll feel compelled to toss in a few mocking references to the inanity of Christianity just in case Andy shows up, even if they arenít relevant to the subject at hand.

Seriously? †A lot of this crap started with one lush acting unprofessionally, and now you have someone who should know better saying he'll deliberately insert shit where it doesn't belong. †No class, no professionalism.

FAIL in reading comprehension. PZ said he'd feel the urge to insert shit where it doesn't belong, not that he actually would insert shit where it doesn't belong. And his use of the word "resent" suggests that whatever PZ may think of that urge, it's not one he approves of nor is likely to act upon. But y' know, if you just want to dump on PZ for the heinous sins of not accepting an apology and publicly stating that he, PZ Myers, does not intend to patronize one particular business, do carry on.

Double FAIL, then, since PZ says he feels compelled by this nobodies actions to act in a certain way, and he resents that, since he isn't responsible for his reactions. But maybe SD is right and this is written at a pre-high school level, but that fits with the childish narcissism displayed in the whole series of posts. Instead of "what will the Kardashian's wear?", it's "will PZ accept the apology (that really only applies to those actually affected by his actions, not those who were offended)?".

I was going to write more, but after playing with my dog for a while, I didn't see any point. I do have more important things to do than comment about internet attention whoring.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G